Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

'The purpose of Welfare is to help people into work

331 replies

AnnieMaybe · 10/04/2014 22:12

This is what David Cameron just said at the end of the BBC benefit programme

Does he not know what welfare is? Has he forgotten the ethos of where it has evolved from

OP posts:
SolidGoldBrass · 11/04/2014 23:21

Given that there aren't enough jobs there are positive advantages to society in some people staying at home with DC.

StarlightMcKenzie · 11/04/2014 23:25

There are no jobs because those with the means and power are charging for entry to them, putting financial and logistical barriers in place, increasing expected working hours in the jobs that exist reducing staffing.

This is not something we should 'accept'. It is something we should address.

fayrae · 11/04/2014 23:53

There is no "them" starlight. It's "us". How many people do you employ?

One of the main problems with face is people talking about "they" should do something. Who is "they"? How are they different from "you"? Where is the line between "them" and "us"?

StarlightMcKenzie · 12/04/2014 09:49

I was talking about the politicians and their friends. I'm not asking them to DO something. I'm asking them to stop making laws and policies that force people to fight each other for unacceptable working conditions or face devastating and inhumane penalties.

SolidGoldBrass · 12/04/2014 10:15

Yes. A problem at present, particularly with work in the media and other 'desirable' industries is that they are becoming less and less accessible to anyone who is poor. Because people are expected to start as unpaid interns, working for no money at all for months at a time, in the hope of a paying post at the end. Only those with wealthy families can do this - if you are getting JSA you are only allowed to work for free if you are doing serf work, because there isn't supposed to be any advantage to you.

Misspixietrix · 12/04/2014 13:15

Solid Serf work?...

Dawndonnaagain · 12/04/2014 13:19

otherwise known as workfare, pixie. Slave Labour.

Misspixietrix · 12/04/2014 13:57

Aah. You learn something new everyday Dawn Grin

SolidGoldBrass · 12/04/2014 17:06

There was a case of a woman who had got some volunteer/intern work in a museum, which was expected to lead to a proper job there (she had a relevant degree) and the job centre wanted her to refuse it and go and stack shelves in Poundland instead. Because poor people can't be allowed to get ideas above their station, presumably.

Misspixietrix · 12/04/2014 17:20

solid she was already there IIRC and they wanted her to give it up. There was also another Man being heard with her case. He didn't get the same media coverage as quite frankly. He didn't want it.

brdbrdbrd · 13/04/2014 06:59

Well it obviously worked, as she now has a "proper job" at Morrisons.

Misspixietrix · 13/04/2014 09:23

brd I'm glad to hear it. Anything that stops these scrounging employers getting free labour and being paid 3k per client by the Jobcentre. Money would be much better spent just giving her a paid position in the first place. Why should taxpayers subsidise other employers free labour? I mean after all its not like they need 3k to pay the workfare client. She's already being paid her benefits.

fideline · 13/04/2014 11:01

Has she really brd? Or is my satire meter still warming up?

fayrae · 13/04/2014 11:05

She'd been working at the museum for free for some time. Exactly how long was she expecting to be doing that before they took her on as a paid employee? I think a lot of people need to realise that they might not ever get their dream job, and they can't expect everyone to happily subsidise them while they wait around to get it. And I bet she is far happier now working for Morrisons than she was then.

fideline · 13/04/2014 11:09

And I bet she is far happier now working for Morrisons than she was then.

Do you really?

IIRC correctly she had a Museum/Heritage masters degree i.e. specialist knowledge and skills. What a waste. What a bonkers way to run a labour market.

Misspixietrix · 13/04/2014 11:21

Fayrae she was working at the Museum to gain relevant experience for a job relevant to her degree. Nothing wrong in that. I will ask again though. Are you happy subsidising Employers to the tune of £3,000 per client. Seeing as Taxpayers are still subsidising the workfare client through Benefits. The Tax Bill goes UP not down.

fideline · 13/04/2014 11:28

I'd be interested in comparing her whole-life tax contribution had she been successful in entering her chosen career to her whole-life tax contribution should you remain in supermarket work. Huge loss to the exchequer PLUS, as MissP says, a hefty bung to a profitable supermarket chain.

fayrae · 13/04/2014 11:33

What is stopping her from later going on to working in a museum even though she currently works in a supermarket? Are museum workers even paid that much more than supermarket workers? She has experience of museum work, now she has experience of a full-time paid position elsewhere. TBH i would think that more attractive to an employer than merely p/t volunteer experience.

I don't know about the £3000 thing but I assume it'd be hard to get employers interested otherwise. Anything has to be better than letting people vegetate for years on benefits.

Misspixietrix · 13/04/2014 11:41

You didn't answer my question Fayrae Are you happy subsidising the Employer? So say for example if a workfare contractor gets 5workfare clients - that's £15,000. Why should they need free (as in not paying her any wages) labour subsidising? Why should the Employer down the road (who didn't make it on to the Jobcentre list of approved worker) have to bend over backwards to pay any new staff whilst the free loading contractors get to have their cake and eat it? If there are ample spaces for Free workfare there are ample spaces to give these people a paid position. The company doesn't get funded by the taxpayer by bribes Incentives, the client comes off Benefits - hurrah the unemployment rate goes Down and the person starts paying tax and putting back into the Economy. Everyone's a winner right?

Chunderella · 13/04/2014 11:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

fideline · 13/04/2014 11:46

The woman in question WASN'T vegetating on benefits. She had self-funded a masters degree and was working hard in a QUALITY career-focussed placement she had sourced herself. I can't think of anything less vegetative.

fayrae · 13/04/2014 12:03

fideline, How long would you have allowed to work (part time, remember) on this placement while eschewing all other employment? She'd been doing it for over a year.

Chundrella, if you were running a business, would you be prepared to take on long term unemployed people as temporary staff, even unpaid, when there are plenty of better people out there to give jobs to? There has to be an incentive otherwise they simply wouldn't consider it. Whether £3000 is too much, maybe, I don't know.

Misspixietrix · 13/04/2014 12:09

It is £3,000 per client Fayrae. Of course it is too much.

fayrae · 13/04/2014 12:11

So say that they stopped offering the money, and the businesses refused to take workfare clients. What then? What do you do with people that have been unemployed for a year or more? Just keep badgering them to apply for jobs that they aren't going to get with no recent experience?

fideline · 13/04/2014 12:13

Two years of interning seems average in many industries these days. Or is that just for twentysomethings who can leech off financially comfortable parents with strategically positioned family homes?

Even if one agrees that (and when) jobcentre intervention/compulsion was appropriate, in what universe was shelf-stacking in poundland a sensible choice for this woman?